So I think Child Benefit should be means tested...

ceret

Perhaps I'm a bit on my own here, but in the wake of talk of cuts, I think child benefit (and most other b enefits) *should* be means tested. I, for one, think it's unfair that a family of €100k+ should get child benefit. They don't need it.

Riskymove

ceret wrote: »

Perhaps I'm a bit on my own here, but in the wake of talk of cuts, I think child benefit (and most other b enefits) *should* be means tested. I, for one, think it's unfair that a family of €100k+ should get child benefit. They don't need it.

Though I would generally agree, McCarthy seems to favor reducing it as a way of avoiding the costs that means testing would incur

Darragh29

I think it should be disbanded. Why should I as a single person, be expected to subsidise other people's kids???

You go past any school in the morning and you'll see yummy mummies with 09 Range Rovers and X5's dropping off their little darlings to school. Who is paying for it??? If you can afford a 100K hummer to bring your little darlings to school, then you can well afford to pay for their upbringing without needing the state to help you with it...

It was mentioned on the radio the other day that a couple with 3 kids can pay the mortgage on their investment property in Spain with the Childrens Allowance!

The idea that a couple on 100K plus can get child benefit automatically is repugant to every iota of common sense and basic cop-on...

bladespin

Darragh29 wrote: »

I think it should be disbanded. Why should I as a single person, be expected to subsidise other people's kids???

I think you should read the constitution, that's part of what our country is about.

I fully agree with means testing child benefit though (or some form of means testing) as I agree, it's silly to think a couple on €100k plus can have a substantial second income from their children alone.

geuro

just chipping in to agree that yes, i think it should be means tested, as should medical cards for OAPs etc. Seems like common sense to me when we are so skint...

Darragh29

bladespin wrote: »

I think you should read the constitution, that's part of what our country is about.

I fully agree with means testing child benefit though (or some form of means testing) as I agree, it's silly to think a couple on €100k plus can have a substantial second income from their children alone.

Yes we should cherish the children of the state, but in 2009, that now means on many occasions that the money the state pays to parents for child benefit is funding mammy and daddys investment property in Alacante... Not on I say, get rid of child benefit across the board, if you want to have kids, then be prepared to pay for them yourself! If you feel that you need child benefit, then you should have to apply for it and be means tested for it...

The amount of automatic handouts in this country is nothing less than scary...

ceret

Darragh29 wrote: »

It was mentioned on the radio the other day that a couple with 3 kids can pay the mortgage on their investment property in Spain with the Childrens Allowance!

Madness! Got a link?

Darragh29

ceret wrote: »

Madness! Got a link?

You don't need one, do the maths!

Riskymove

ceret wrote: »

Madness! Got a link?

why do you need a link?

Child benefit for 2 kids is €332 a month, 3 kids is €535

if you are already comfortable, that's a nice bonus

upthedub

Darragh29 wrote: »

I think it should be disbanded. Why should I as a single person, be expected to subsidise other people's kids???

You go past any school in the morning and you'll see yummy mummies with 09 Range Rovers and X5's dropping off their little darlings to school. Who is paying for it??? If you can afford a 100K hummer to bring your little darlings to school, then you can well afford to pay for their upbringing without needing the state to help you with it...

It was mentioned on the radio the other day that a couple with 3 kids can pay the mortgage on their investment property in Spain with the Childrens Allowance!

The idea that a couple on 100K plus can get child benefit automatically is repugant to every iota of common sense and basic cop-on...

What school do you see them type of cars 09 range rovers and X5s???:rolleyes:

jprender

Why is the figure of 100k being mentioned as a threshold ?

Why not 40K ?

Darragh29

upthedub wrote: »

What school do you see them type of cars 09 range rovers and X5s???:rolleyes:

I drove past a primary school in Lucan not that long ago and was amazed by the number of high value cars dropping kids off at school. No shortage of new Range Rovers (costing over 100K), 08/09 Mercs & BM's... If you can afford one of these, you don't need child benefit as far as I'm concerned. The government should CUT this payment and see how many people are driving around in state of the art cars in twelve months time, that they in all reality probably can't afford, only the government are throwing money at them for bringing up children.

Ddad

I'm in receipt of child benefits for three children. Alas I don't own an investment property in Alicante or anywhere else.

i don't think I should be eligible for this benefit as our combined income is good. Thats in my case.

However, I'll bet Daragh doesn't have a clue about the cost of raising children and rearing them well.

It costs a bomb. If you want someone around to pay your pension and provide services when your older you'll want people to have children. Without some supports many people cannot afford to have children.

"I don't see why i should pay for prisons I never use them"???????:rolleyes:

upthedub

Darragh29 wrote: »

I drove past a primary school in Lucan not that long ago and was amazed by the number of high value cars dropping kids off at school. No shortage of new Range Rovers (costing over 100K), 08/09 Mercs & BM's... If you can afford one of these, you don't need child benefit as far as I'm concerned. The government should CUT this payment and see how many people are driving around in state of the art cars in twelve months time, that they in all reality probably can't afford, only the government are throwing money at them for bringing up children.

Cut it????Surely not..:eek:

What about the familys that really depend on it???

You cannot say it should be cut because rich mammys or daddys in lucan are ripping us off !

Darragh29

Ddad wrote: »

I'm in receipt of child benefits for three children. Alas I don't own an investment property in Alicante or anywhere else.

i don't think I should be eligible for this benefit as our combined income is good. Thats in my case.

However, I'll bet Daragh doesn't have a clue about the cost of raising children and rearing them well.

It costs a bomb. If you want someone around to pay your pension and provide services when your older you'll want people to have children. Without some supports many people cannot afford to have children.

"I don't see why i should pay for prisons I never use them"???????:rolleyes:

Your dead right, bringing up kids is an expensive business, hence why I decided not to have any yet! When I am ready to do so financially and I can do it without being a burden on the state and other people/taxpayers financially, I might do so. But a lot of the people that I can see who are getting child benefit, are living outside their means... They are driving 07/08/09 top end cars bought for stupid money and if you sit down beside them at a BBQ or when your out for a pint, they will tell you that they are broke, they are feeling the pinch, they can't cope, they hate the government, etc. I feel like saying, "maybe if you got rid of that 08 Range Rover that is costing you 600 Euro a month, things might not be looking so bad!"...

Darragh29

upthedub wrote: »

Cut it????Surely not..:eek:

What about the familys that really depend on it???

You cannot say it should be cut because rich mammys or daddys in lucan are ripping us off !

It should be pulled in the morning and if you need it, it should be given on a "per application" basis. I can't understand the difficulty here, Revenue hold records on income, they can work out if you need it or not, if you are earning over 100K, then I don't see why you need child benefit, you've plenty of money to live on. End of problem I think....

Orlaithc9

I think Ddad said it better than I actually could.

But just to add....i am a 25 year old female, have a six month old baby, have my own car,own my own house, and myself and my partner (31) both work 47 hours a week.
We dont live beyond our means and budget our spendingsvery carefully every week. We would not even think about having another baby untill we were completely and utterly sure we could afford number 2.
It does make me upset to watch young mummies walk around with new prams, fashionable clothes etc and not work. I dont think people should get money just for having children, maybe if things were different we wouldnt have so many young teens getting pregnant- just a thought.

eamonnm79

I think the fairest way to do it is to tell people that it will be cut 100% for everyone but people can apply for a means tested Childrens allowance.
Once all the applications are finalised the childrens allowance shall be cut for everyone else.
Now I know what you are thinking, 'this will take forever!'

But thats where the governments new employees come in.
How about we get 200 staff from Anglo to do it?

I would say they could get throgh the 500 thousand applications in about 5-6 months.

Colin maCarthys method of reducing for all is about as equitable as most of his other suggestions.
1.8 billion of the 5.3 billion cuts are in Social welfare.
People on social welfare should take on 1/3 of the cuts for the whole economy?
We Should have just got Milton Friedmans Ghost to do it up it would have
been more equitable
What about a 5% levy on familys earning over 100k or individuals earning 65k?

Darragh29

Ddad wrote: »

I'm in receipt of child benefits for three children. Alas I don't own an investment property in Alicante or anywhere else.

i don't think I should be eligible for this benefit as our combined income is good. Thats in my case.

However, I'll bet Daragh doesn't have a clue about the cost of raising children and rearing them well.

It costs a bomb. If you want someone around to pay your pension and provide services when your older you'll want people to have children. Without some supports many people cannot afford to have children.

"I don't see why i should pay for prisons I never use them"???????:rolleyes:

Well if you don't consider that you need it, why do you continue to go down to the Post Office every week and claim it???

You could easily hand them back the book and ask them to close the account and take you off the system because you don't actually need state subvention to rear your children??

I'm not having a go at you, but its either we get our heads around this concept of "do you really need state assistance?", or else we run out of cash as a country fairly imminently!

jprender

eamonnm79 wrote: »

What about a 5% levy on familys earning over 100k or individuals earning 65k?

How about a 5% levy on everyone ?

harsea8

Although I agree with the OP's sentiment, I think means-testing is likely to be shelved cos of the associated costs. Also, where do you set the limit?...for example, say we follow the above mentioned idea of cutting it for any family earning over €100K....would it then be fair that a family with a combined salary of €80K with one child gets state support for raising their child, but a family with a combined salary of €101K with 4 children gets diddly-squat?

My proposal would be to continue to give the CB in the standard way (ie, based on number of children), but to tax the full amount at a person's highest tax band. Thus those not paying tax and the unemployed get the full whack, those only paying 20% tax get ~80% of the normal amount and those who pay income tax on the higher tax band, only get ~60% of it. If the government grew a pair and introduced an even higher tax band (say 60% for earnings over €200K), then anyone earning over this amount would only get ~40% of the current amount. Although by no means ideal, it would at least be fairer than the current system and relatively cheap to implement.

Ddad

Like I said, I don't believe I should receive it.

If you drop it completely overnight you end up in the position where tens of thousands of families end up in terrible trouble.

trying to claim any benefits in this country at the moment is difficult...very difficult.

I will however give you an example of how circumstances change.A friend of mine has three children all born into a stable well off family. His wife is now ill, he can only afford to do part time lowly paid work so the family is on the breadline. All that happened in three years.

Circumstances change, but you cannot hand the children back.

I think it's fair to declare what happens to the childrens allowance in our house. Three credit union accounts to pay for the childrens education, it looks like we'll need it.

Darragh29

Ddad wrote: »

Like I said, I don't believe I should receive it.

If you drop it completely overnight you end up in the position where tens of thousands of families end up in terrible trouble.

trying to claim any benefits in this country at the moment is difficult...very difficult.

I will however give you an example of how circumstances change.A friend of mine has three children all born into a stable well off family. His wife is now ill, he can only afford to do part time lowly paid work so the family is on the breadline. All that happened in three years.

Circumstances change, but you cannot hand the children back.

I think it's fair to declare what happens to the childrens allowance in our house. Three credit union accounts to pay for the childrens education, it looks like we'll need it.

I take your point on the not dropping it in its entirety overnight. But we should start somewhere. People earning over 100K don't need child support, and if they consider that they do, then I reckon they are living beyond their means. So it should be cut for those people. The government could start by writing to all people who Revenue records show are earning over 100K and asking them to clarify their income within 28 days. If they cannot prove that they are earning below the 100K threshold within the 28 day period, then CB should be withdrawn... That would be a start...

Ddad

Darragh29 wrote: »

Well if you don't consider that you need it, why do you continue to go down to the Post Office every week and claim it???

You could easily hand them back the book and ask them to close the account and take you off the system because you don't actually need state subvention to rear your children??

I'm not having a go at you, but its either we get our heads around this concept of "do you really need state assistance?", or else we run out of cash as a country fairly imminently!

Fair point, I get it automatically into my bank account, as do most people. I don't receive any other benefit from the state despite paying enormous sums in income tax and indirect taxation. I've been honest on my tax returns and received rebates.

I'm willing to give it up but I'm not an idiot. the last time I checked a large number of politicians were still getting pensions while receiving salaries and expenses. I'm still on the moral high ground.

Darragh29

Ddad wrote: »

Fair point, I get it automatically into my bank account, as do most people. I don't receive any other benefit from the state despite paying enormous sums in income tax and indirect taxation. I've been honest on my tax returns and received rebates.

I'm willing to give it up but I'm not an idiot. the last time I checked a large number of politicians were still getting pensions while receiving salaries and expenses. I'm still on the moral high ground.

And that's why leadership on this issue has to come from the top... I fully understand your reluctance to hand back state benefits when you see a privileged political elite with their snouts still in the trough, some 12 months into a recession, still claiming unvouched expenses, still underperforming, still being vastly overpaid.

harsea8

Darragh29 wrote: »

I take your point on the not dropping it in its entirety overnight. But we should start somewhere. People earning over 100K don't need child support, and if they consider that they do, then I reckon they are living beyond their means. So it should be cut for those people. The government could start by writing to all people who Revenue records show are earning over 100K and asking them to clarify their income within 28 days. If they cannot prove that they are earning below the 100K threshold within the 28 day period, then CB should be withdrawn... That would be a start...

As I alluded to in my earlier post, why €100K? Why not €90K?
I think everyone agrees that the current system is sh*te (what with multi-millionaires being eligible) but we can't go changing to a system where we pick an arbitrary amount and say everyone earning above this gets sweet FA "cos they can afford it" and anyone below it gets the full amount cos they can't afford it (if we do, people earning €90-95K will be laughing!). Also, as I said before, you cannot ignore the fact that more children = more costs, so, if you are going to means test, it has to be based on number of children as well as salary

Darragh29

harsea8 wrote: »

As I alluded to in my earlier post, why €100K? Why not €90K?
I think everyone agrees that the current system is sh*te (what with multi-millionaires being eligible) but we can't go changing to a system where we pick an arbitrary amount and say everyone earning above this gets sweet FA "cos they can afford it" and anyone below it gets the full amount cos they can't afford it (if we do, people earning €90-95K will be laughing!). Also, as I said before, you cannot ignore the fact that more children = more costs, so, if you are going to means test, it has to be based on number of children as well as salary

Why 100K??? Because what's needed here is a decision. A quick decision... I work for myself and I have to make decisions on the financial end of my business every day of the week. I have to decide what I need to do, and THEN I I HAVE TO IMPLEMENT MY DECISION! I can't fob off my responsibilities to committees, "Bord Snip Nua's", and then dilly dally when the facts are staring me in the face!

Someone needs to make a decision with regard to a new income threshold for CB eligibility and execute that decision immediately. Unfortunately here, we don't have a decision and we don't have the execution of a decision, what we have is endless dithering that is costing us HALF A BILLION EURO a month!

Ddad

Darragh29 wrote: »

And that's why leadership on this issue has to come from the top... I fully understand your reluctance to hand back state benefits when you see a privileged political elite with their snouts still in the trough, some 12 months into a recession, still claiming unvouched expenses, still underperforming, still being vastly overpaid.

In a nutshell.

Like I said, my only state benefit. As an aside I've had to pay over €5000 for medical treatment for my children in the last year. Going down the public route in this country would have really added to the suffering of the children. I am very lucky that I could afford it. I am very mad that someone who cannot afford it has to watch their childs sufferign prorlonged.

thats why I'd give up more money willingly....if i had any faith in the goms running the country.

harsea8

Hey, you're preaching to the converted here, if there is one thing that is bugging me more than anything about the "recession" is the constant talk of what might happen...I wish the government would just get on with it and f*cking do something and the we could all deal with it/strike/or whatever and then start trying to find a way back up.

Back on topic, I was not advocating that it is unfair to penalise someone earning over €100K a year, I was actually suggesting that we shouldn't necessarily continue to be generous to those on €90K a year, but I accept your point about having to starting somewhere...I guess they could start at 100k and could reduce the threshold by €10K every few months to allow the rest of us to sort our finances out before the money disappears.

ceret

jprender wrote: »

Why is the figure of 100k being mentioned as a threshold ?

Why not 40K ?

Oh no particular reason. I just picked €100k as a round figure that's quite clearly living comfortably.

It's not hard to figure out some sort of formula for income and number of children. These are specifics. And yes, you'll always have 2 people at either side of a cut off. However having a cut off is fairer than not having an cut off.

ceret

Darragh29 wrote: »

Well if you don't consider that you need it, why do you continue to go down to the Post Office every week and claim it???

You could easily hand them back the book and ask them to close the account and take you off the system because you don't actually need state subvention to rear your children??

My Granny is GP and still working. She isn't exactly poor. She was opposed to automatic nonmeans tested medical cards for the over 70s. She was entitled to one and didn't take it.